Buddism isn't a religion, it's a dangerous cult

hahahhaa

is he for real?
Isn't this great Christian legacy of separation responsible for all the variations of caesaropapism that Western society has experienced for the past 1600 or so years?

I think it's pretty disingenuous to equate New Age Gowiththeflowism with Buddhism proper, the latter which is a fairly complex system of thought when looked at in its historical context, that does not amount to Star Wars clichees and books on finance authored by "Tibetan lamas" who were forced to watch Eddie Murphy movies as kids!
Obviously Buddhism is ultimately just as reactionary as any other religion, but if we're talking in purely philosophical terms, Zizek is wrong; there is absolutely nothing that makes Buddhism more compatible with "virtual capitalism" than any other iron age ideology that has been bastardized over and over (including Christianity of course).

apathetic Christian: It's all in God's hands; give unto Caesar and all that
"social-minded" Christian: we must help the poor
Buddhist: It's all an illusion; must shave head and destroy desire.
"social-minded" Buddhist: we must help the poor.

no fucking difference. Zizek's argument is basically "Eastern stuff is all apologetic towards authority because it's too detached; Christian stuff is basically good because it embraces violent love" or some stupid shit like that. Fucking embarrassing really.

Also the central tenent of ALL Buddhism is the final disavowel of desire and suffering. Christianity on the otherhand worships suffering. Now both can be obviously reactionary as fuck. However in relation to the ideology of post modernity, with it's focus on personal lifestyle, well being and it's 'previleging' of individual subjectivity and desire above hard materialism and science, the Buddhist focus on the illusionary nature of desire and inner peace flowing from disavowel of material desires, sits much better than a Christianity that whilst of course offering supernatural salvation, is at odds to uphold the speration between man and god, and in so much as this seperation is bridgeable it was only so through god suffering as christ on the cross, the materiality and corpeolity of this act of salvation being painfully marked on the man/god's flesh.

desire is not illusory; it is a real consequence of our relationship to material possessions. Total annihilation of desire is an ideal of course, just as imitatio Christi is an ideal for Christians.

Yes but in Christianity Salvation is universal and external, that is coming from Christs very corperality on the cross, even Christ's plea of 'Father, why have you forsaken me', illustrates that even at the point of apparent unification between God and man (through christs suffering), this unification is paradoxically only possible through it's disavowal.

Christianity never looks to disavow desire, it is based on an love/violence. This is why nuns do not simply disavow the desires of the flesh but instead become wives of Christ, the desire is not aimed to be extinguished but directed towards Christ.

"if he does not beat me he doesn't love me?" really?

yes, because there's nothing else to criticize; as he himself admits pointing out that old-fashioned organized religion is "the opiate of the masses" is a tired old point that needs no further justification. New Ageism is interesting because of its "post-ideological" incoherent syncretism which sets it apart from the old religions.

what I said is that Zizek makes two distinct points (imo); one about the nature of New Ageist syncretism, another about the essence of Christianity as opposed to the essence of Buddhism. Trying to pass off a vaguely defined "detachment" as the equivalent of the latter is pretty misinformed, but it is not surprising since his picture of Buddhism is basically extrapolated from Star Wars movies.
Detachment in the buddhist sense is not a negation of material reality or of human desire, but a sort of phenomenological practice that is meant to test the limits of our conceptual reality. Zizek implies that detachment in an actual Buddhist sense is equivalent to indifference, when that is clearly not the case. Detachment means a constant reevaluation of one's principles and convictions with the purpose of making them better conform to reality and not to some sacrosanct text.
This is why I think that a purely theoretical Buddhist stance is much more compatible with the kind of investigative and sceptical mindset that is required to understand the workings of capitalism, given that whatever material conditions we find ourselves in are of our own making and not part of some divine plan (and most certainly not an illusion). The whole point about illusion is basically a criticism of language, and that's how it must be understood, not as some sort of "nothing really exists" idealism (which is more of a Western school of thought actually)
Look, my interest in religion is purely academic. I personally detest the reactionary character of Buddhism as an organized religion (evident in such notable examples as Tibetan theocracy and Japanese militarism), but you can't just lump in Buddhism with a bunch of New Age gobbeldygook and call that a valid critique.
And if you look at the textual evidence, Buddhist "detachment" is on the contrary much more compatible with a critical view of capitalist exploitation than Christian fatalism is. Doctrinal inaccuracies aside, the part that bothers me the most about Zizek's point is his insistence that Christian zeal is more useful to a possibly radical perspective than Buddhist scepticism. At the least the point he should've made is that religious thought is irrelevant to radical politics, but if we're gonna keep the Buddhism vs. Christianity scenario, I'll go with Buddhism (at the risk of being accused of hippie lifestylism or whatever).

I don't agree. Christianity is clearly against desire because it sees the corporeal body as impure (an influence of Jewish and Gnosticism mysticism I would argue). As such Christianity is the one that actually rejects desire outright (thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's....), whereas Buddhism is looking simply to investigate the nature of desire, convinced that it is ultimately irrational.
Yes, nuns direct their frustrated sexuality towards Christ without even attempting to understand that what they experience is normal human behaviour and not divine revelation. This probably goes for most monastics however (not just women) of all religions, including Buddhist ones. But that is the nature of all mysticism, and it has little to do with philosophical theories, Christian or Buddhist.

are you utterly blind to humour and metaphor.

The point Zizek uses to illustrate love as violence is poorly chosen (no doubt with the intention to shock) and he makes much better arguments for this, that to love something is to elevate it above others/things and this act is inherently violent as it creates a rip in the flat unity of the universe.

Well I'm not even close to well read on Buddhism but surely this only backs Zizek's argument, the notion thatour principles and convictions should be reevaluated to better conform to reality stands against the revolutionary notion of making reality conform to our principles and convictions. This notion of principles and convictions conforming to reality fits hand in glove with the technocratic post political landscape in which we are expected to adjust our politics to fit better with reality (ie capitalism).

Now you might argue that capitalism isn't reality, but in which case I have to ask what is reality, and how could it ever have principles and convictions to which we map ours?

Also I don't know if you just editted this on or I missed it,

Christianity is not against desire per se, it is infact brimming with it, even it's attempts to restrict it, it is all the more acknowledged. Whilst in it's christ is love, love the world happy clappy forms or it's more calvinist thou shalt not... modes it never disavows desire, it will celebrate it or fight it but it takes it seriously as a reality. Buddhism on the other hand in holding desire as ultimately irrational and ultimately seeking to overcome it and reach enlightenment (I know that is simple but I assume it is the central tennant of all branches) is similar to the post modernist who in the failing to find totally solid epistemological ground disavows all truths.

somebody better come up with some good dick jokes and put this thread back to where it belongs (i.e. libcommunity).

Communism does not exist yet, so it would pretty useless to say what we should do with it. If it did exist though, it would mean the opposite of capitalist misery, so I don't see why any Buddhist would object to it on a theoretical basis.

the larger conviction, by which I assume you mean communism, is not however anything in itself but an ideal. What we need to make it happen is concrete action based on sound theory, and for that there needs to be a good amount of discussion and reevaluation, not praying to God and hoping that it will all work itself out in the next world.
Let's equate the Christian God with communism (because this is where Zizek's metaphor ultimately leads to, correct me if I'm wrong). What does communism mean in this context? Yes it's a dominant extraneous Platonic form that we can rely on, and that's nice, but it ultimately does not exist until we reach that point in deed and in fact. In this sense, Buddhism does not see communism as out there waiting for us, but a possibility that ultimately depends on the success of our methods. I personally find this latter view more reassuring and realistic.

I think it's the opposite. Christianity can only act in society as a sideshow to its real mission which is the reunification of the soul with God in heaven. In Buddhism, there is only one material world; whatever you do here is ultimately "the mission." And what you are techinically told to do is cultivate empathy with your fellow humans and work towards the greater social good, not limiting yourself to the requirements of some god or your own selfish desires.

Again, like Zizek, you are relying on a convenient caricature of a typical New Age lifestylist, and not on the actual tenets of Buddhism (a lot of which, as I've said, are meaningless ritualistic bullshit, but we're talking about the "essence" here).
Sitting under a tree is something that is associated with the legend of the Buddha (which is after all a fucking story no better or more realistic than that of Jesus' virgin birth) and it has purely poetical value; no one actually sits under trees because that would be a complete waste of time. Buddhist meditation is something entirely different from that (see my earlier point on "detachment").